Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: it explains that a post whose time has passed needs a new time and will not silently publish late. That is valuable behavioral disclosure. It does not explain why the operation is marked destructive, which is the one remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the conditional constraint. No filler. The colloquial phrasing 'never goes out late by surprise' is slightly informal but conveys the guarantee efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, so the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, the past-time condition, and that a new time may be required. It omits the failure case where the post is not paused, which would be a useful addition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%: both parameters are documented, including the ISO 8601 or 'best' options for 'when'. The description reinforces the conditional requirement for 'when', which is useful but largely repeats the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it puts a paused post back on the schedule. That is clearly distinct from create_post, schedule_post, and pause_post. It does not explicitly name reschedule_post, the closest sibling, but the 'paused' qualifier narrows the purpose effectively.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'paused post' implies the precondition for use, but the description never states the inverse relationship with pause_post, nor when to prefer reschedule_post over this tool. The condition for supplying 'when' is clear, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.